高尔夫空挥杆、击打泡沫球和真球动作的生物力学分析

发布时间：2018-02-06 06:16

  本文关键词： 高尔夫挥杆 空挥杆练习 击打泡沫球 杆头速度 表面肌电 到达峰值时间 肩髋夹角　出处：《上海体育学院》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：研究目的:由于受场地条件等外界环境因素所限,空挥杆练习和击打泡沫球练习常常应用于日常训练中。本研究旨在比较两种挥杆动作与真实挥杆动作的差异,分析造成这一差异的生物力学原因,并为空挥杆练习和击打泡沫球练习的实际应用提供实验依据。研究方法:选取上海体育学院高尔夫专业的10名学生(其中8名为男性,2名为女性,均为右手球手,身高171.8±4.96cm,体重62.45±6.36kg,年龄20.2±1.23y,运动年限均为2.5y)作为研究对象,受试者随机进行空挥杆练习、击打泡沫球练习和真实挥杆击球。使用Vicon三维运动捕捉系统(120 Hz,MXT40,Vicon Motion Analysis Inc.,Oxford,UK),kistler三维测力台(960Hz,Kistler Instruments AG Corp.,Winterthur,Switzerland),Delsys表面肌电采集分析系统(4000Hz,Delsys Inc.MA,USA)同步采集挥杆全程的运动学数据、表面肌电数据及其它相关数据。采用单因素重复测量方差分析比较空挥杆练习和真实挥杆击球以及击打泡沫球练习和真实挥杆击球时的数据,事后检验采用Bonferroni法,显著性差异水平α=0.05,所得数据均以“平均值±标准差”的形式表示。研究结果:1)空挥杆练习时的杆头速度显著小于真实挥杆击球的,击打泡沫球时的杆头速度与真实挥杆击球时的没有显著性差异。2)在上杆阶段三种挥杆动作经历时长都十分接近,没有显著性差异。在下杆阶段空挥杆练习经历时间显著小于真实挥杆击球的,击打泡沫球时的与真实挥杆击球时的没有显著性差异。3)空挥杆练习时的肩髋夹角下杆阶段最大值显著小于真实挥杆击球时的,击打泡沫球时的与真实挥杆击球时的没有显著性差异。4)在上杆阶段和下杆阶段,所有肌肉表面肌电达到峰值时间(Time to Peak)在三种挥杆动作的情况下都十分接近,没有显著性差异。5)在上杆阶段,腰背部肌肉(腹外斜肌、竖脊肌、背阔肌,均取左右两侧)RMS值在三种挥杆动作的情况下都十分接近,没有显著性差异。在下杆阶段,左右两侧竖脊肌和左右两侧背阔肌RMS值均在空挥杆练习时显著小于真实挥杆击球时的,左右两侧腹外斜肌在两种挥杆下都没有显著性差异;击打泡沫球时的所有肌肉RMS值与真实挥杆击球时的没有显著性差异。研究结论:空挥杆练习时的击球效果比真实挥杆击球时的差,而击打泡沫球时的击球效果和真实挥杆击球时的十分接近。在挥杆动作过程中,三者肌肉的活动模式没有显著性差异,但空挥杆练习时腰背部肌肉活动度较小,而击打泡沫球时与真实挥杆击球接近。这提示,空挥杆练习和击打泡沫球练习都可以作为训练手段,但击打泡沫球练习显然更接近于真实挥杆击球,效果更好。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the difference between the two kinds of swing movements and real swing movements because of the limitation of environment factors such as field conditions and other environmental factors, the empty swing practice and the hitting foam ball practice are often used in daily training, and the purpose of this study is to compare the difference between the two kinds of swing movements and the real swing movements. The biomechanical reasons for this difference were analyzed. The research methods are as follows: 10 students (8 male and 2 female) of golf major in Shanghai Institute of physical Education are selected. All of them were right-hand golfers. They were 171.8 卤4.96cm tall, 62.45 卤6.36kg, 20.2 卤1.23ys. exercise years were 2.5ys. The subjects were randomly engaged in blank swing, foam ball and real swing. The Vicon 3D motion capture system was used to capture 120Hz MXT40. Vicon Motion Analysis... Oxfordl. Kistler three dimensional dynamometer. Kistler Instruments AG Corp.Winterthurn Switzerland. The Delsys surface electromyography (EMG) acquisition and analysis system (4000Hz) was used to synchronously collect the kinematics data of the whole swing. Surface electromyoelectric data and other related data. Single factor repeated measurement of variance analysis was used to compare the data of empty swing practice and real swing shot, as well as hitting foam ball practice and real swing. The Bonferroni method was used in the post test, and the significant difference level was 0. 05% (P < 0. 05). The data are expressed in the form of "mean 卤standard deviation". The result of the study is that the speed of the pole head in the practice of empty swing is significantly lower than that of the actual swing. There was no significant difference between the speed of club head and that of real swing. 2) in the upper swing stage, the three kinds of swing experienced very similar duration. There is no significant difference. In the next stage of blank swing practice experience time is significantly less than the actual swing shot. There was no significant difference between the foam ball and the real swing. 3) the maximum value of the angle between the shoulder and hip in the practice of empty swing was significantly lower than that in the real swing. There is no significant difference between hitting foam ball and real swing. 4) in the upper and lower stages. All muscle surface electromyoelectric peak time (time to Peak) in the three swing movements are very close, there is no significant difference. 5) in the upper pole stage. Lumbar and back muscles (ventral oblique muscle, vertical spinal muscle, latissimus dorsi muscle) were taken from the left and right sides of the RMS values were very close to each other in the case of three swing movements, there was no significant difference. The RMS values of the vertical spinal muscles and the latissimus dorsi were significantly lower in the empty swing than in the real swing, and there was no significant difference between the right and left ventral oblique muscles under the two swing. There was no significant difference between the RMS of all muscles when hitting foam ball and the actual swing. Conclusion: the effect of blank swing is worse than that of real swing. However, the effect of hitting foam ball is very close to that of real swing. In the process of swing, there is no significant difference among the three muscle movement modes, but the waist and back muscle activity is small in empty swing practice. This suggests that the blank swing practice and the hitting foam ball practice can be used as training methods, but the foam ball hitting practice is obviously closer to the real swing, and the effect is better.
【学位授予单位】：上海体育学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：G849.3;G804.6
，

本文编号：1493782